Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallba… scores 7.0 points higher (46.8 vs 39.8) but costs 2.8× as much to run the benchmark ($1027 vs $363; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallba… when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8-Flash-Next.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 39.8 | −15.0% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 15.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,027.40 | $362.72 | −64.7% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 64.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.50s | 50.47s | +205.9% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 205.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $10.0 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback): 15.0% less intelligence, 64.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 205.9% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback)Qwen3.8-Flash-NextToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-sonnet-5-5-high/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-sonnet-5-5-high/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill